Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mitchell v. Washington

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

May 7, 2019

GARY MITCHELL, Plaintiff,
v.
HEIDI WASHINGTON, ET AL., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

          Sean F. Cox U.S. District Judge.

         I. Introduction

         Gary Mitchell, who is presently confined at the Carson City Correctional Facility has filed a pro se civil rights complaint. He names fifteen defendants, all of whom are employed by the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). For the reasons stated below, the Court will summarily dismiss the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim.

         II. Standard of Review

          Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

         III. Complaint

         The complaint names fifteen defendants: (1) MDOC Director Heidi Washington, (2) Assistant Deputy Warden Greason, (3) Prison Counselor Ms. V. Hinorosa, (4) Residential Unit Manager Mr. Kinner, (5) Assistant Residential Unit Manager Mr. Rushing, (6) Grievance Coordinator Ms. Taylor, (7) Hearing Officer Mr. M. Szappan, (8) Corrections Officer Turner, (9) Corrections Officer Dill, (10) Corrections Officer Dancy, (11) Mental Health Specialist Mr. Levine, (12) Corrections Officer Edwards, (13) Residential Unit Manager Ms. Grant, (14) Warden Warren, and (15) MDOC Deputy Director Rapelje.

         Plaintiff claims that on November 2, 2018, while he was housed at the Macomb Correctional Facility, he was taken to the segregation unit by defendants Turner, Dancy, and Edwards. He asserts these officers failed to secure his cell door, which allowed another inmate to remove his television from his cell.

         When plaintiff returned to his unit and loudly demanded to know who stole his television, another inmate said that he did it, but that plaintiff told the guards he would be killed. Defendant Turner heard the commotion and asked plaintiff what was wrong. Plaintiff informed Turner of the prisoner who took his television, and Turner retrieved and returned it to plaintiff.

         When Turner informed plaintiff that the prisoner would be given a ticket for stealing, Plaintiff complained that the prisoner was a member of the “Blood Gang” and that the gang would get him for snitching.

         Plaintiff requested that Turner place him in protective custody. Turner contacted defendant Rushing regarding the request. Rushing told Turner that the facility did not have protective custody, and so Turner ordered plaintiff to return to his cell. Plaintiff refused and was placed in administrative segregation for failing to comply with a direct order.

         Later that day, plaintiff was taken before a security classification committee comprised of defendants Hinorosa, Kinner, Levine, and Greason. Plaintiff again complained about the threat made by the other prisoner, but he was again informed by Greason that the facility did not offer protective custody. Plaintiff was given another direct order to return to his unit.

         Plaintiff asserts that he filed a grievance regarding the issue on November 4, 2018, but defendant Taylor refused to process or address it.

         On November 9, 2018, Plaintiff was found guilty of disobeying a direct order by defendant Szappan and given seven days in the “hole” and ten days loss of privileges. Plaintiff filed a grievance asserting that the facility was in effect ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.